The 'Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World'
(EVAW) edited by Paul Oliver can be considered as a milestone in global
house research. It has raised the ethnology of the house and of dwelling
to a new global level. What conventionally was attributed to folklore studies
too is included. In view of this global collection of data related to traditional
house cultures it is not surprising that expressions like 'the anthropology
of the house' and 'anthropology of architecture' are increasingly used.
Questioning the origins of house traditions, their relation to social structure
and their often dense symbolisms has become a new standard.

IntroductionFig. 1, 2, 3

Fig. 1: What a strange building! It seems basically
geometrically conceived like a house or a houselike container on a post.
On the other hand it shows a tremendous dynamism in regard to what we call
decoration. There is a bird on top and for the rest we see fernlike protrusions
with subdivisions and in many directions mainly above the roof. (Salong
Mausoleum from Rumah Laseh, Kejaman, Sarawak; Dorothy Pelzer, 1968 [Waterson
1990:201])

Fig. 2: Here too, the rooftop is protruding. And like
in the first example: birds. Do they indicate a relation with the heavens,
with the cosmos? This is the way many peoples interpret such symbolisms.
But probably there is another way to understand this, more related to architecture.
(House shaped tomb (joro) at Lumban Silambi, Toba; Bartlett 1934 [Waterson
1990:212])Fig. 3: Maybe this example might help us with
a somehow more simple model. It is closely related to the above example
(Festival to appease the dead). It shows four strongly curved-types of
branches protruding from a small whitewashed hut. Seen with the naturalists
eyes we never would be able to understand what is meant. The lower part
is artificial, Architecture (A). The upper part is natural, evidently vital.
Both parts are structurally and physically related. However it is difficult
to understand why: it seems to be a 'Maximum-Contrast-Form'. Above / below,
natural/ artificial, stable/ dynamic. (O) in contrast to (A) for Architecture
and stability, place etc.. We call the principle in this maximum contrast
form "categorical polarity", or "polar harmony". Note also that, though
very different in their specific forms, both roofs have something in common,
'categorical polarity'. We can say: there is a '(categorically)polar analogy'
among them. They are both quasi identical in regard to the principle of
polar harmony. thus, they are not only aesthetically balanced, they represent
an order. If we assume that this balanced order can be small or spatially
extended into the relation of heaven and earth, we can say that our two
houses are the basic foundation of a potentially harmonious world order
implying "All in One and One in All" ('Hen kai pan' in ancient Greece).
Note that we are speaking of a basically aesthetic concept, which in fact
has a universally harmonious and unifying meaning. (Iban 'sungkup' burial
hut made for the great festival to entertain the dead, 'Gawai Antu'; Sandin
1963 [Waterson 1990:201]

Let us have a look at a photo (Fig. 1) published by Roxana Waterson
in her book on Southeast Asian vernacular architecture with the title 'The
living House' (1990). The picture shows a small houseform used as a Mausoleum.
The roof is surrounded by wildly protruding plant symbolisms. A kind of
vernacular Baroque? How can we understand such 'dynamic' decorations of
roofs and houseforms? Fig. 2 and 3 give some further examples. Maybe
this world adheres to a particular deep-rooted philosophy which we may
know from other regions of the world? For instance in China where, on sacred
buildings, we find wild dragons on dynamically curved roofs, contrasting
immensely with the 'rigid rationality' of the lower part of the structure?

Evidently, such questions can not easily be answered. First, because
conventional anthropology is a fairly heterogeneous discipline with numerous
subdisciplines, views, approaches, theories. In addition most of these
subdisciplines and approaches are formed by the European history of culture
and thus often project prejudices on the materials rooted in other cultures.

Thus the methods to do research with traditional house cultures are
still very heterogeneous, as can be seen in the first volume of the encyclopedia
with its numerous disciplinary, culturo-theoretical, and environmental
perspectives. In addition we have the countless objective conditions of
'design' and production as they are described in volume 2 and 3.

In fact, the vernacular house is a highly complex phenomenon. We risk
endless approaches without really understanding the essence of the house.
In the following we want to shortly outline how cultural anthropology understands
the 'anthropology of the house'. Basically there are the following questions:
1) Is the vernacular house merely the result of external factors that
were perceived by humans and used to produce house forms?
2) Or was it rather the human being producing ideas which were matrialized
and kept through time, thus producing often bizarre forms as an expression
of the human mind?
3) Or, can we understand the house itself and its precursors as a relatively
autonomous development, which autonomously produced structural conditions
which were perceived by human beings, were then actively recreated and
further developed?

Most anthropologists and architectural house researchers would emphasise
points one and two in combination. Most would be sceptical in regard to
point 3, or would even reject it completely. Later on we want to show that
point 3 makes sense and allows best to explain the great variety of forms
and arrangements. But first we will shortly outline the conventional arguments.

2.THE CONVENTIONAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE TRADITIONAL HOUSE

The origins of the vernacular house

Let us first do a short excursion by following the entry 'Anthropology'
in the first volume of the Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the
World. Reimar Schefold gives a good outline of the problem of the anthropological
approach towards vernacular architecture.

Factor-analysis [Rapoport]: Amos Rapoport was one of the
first who in new ways studied traditional house forms worldwide with a
specifically developed method. His factor analysis, as it can be called,
is known today to a wider public interested in architecture and is also
still used by many in spite of its highly problematic structure. Rapoport
has basically interpreted house forms as individual units, which is a rather
problematic assumption. In fact the traditional house is, in whatever culture,
always an accumulation of various and different lines of development. The
roof is a primary evolutionary line. Similarly the entrance, the window
and the walls have their own developments. Similarly the fireplace, the
hearth, the stove. All these components have their own lines of development
and can combine to form this or that type of house according to various
conditions. Consequently Rapoport's method is a rationalistic approach,
which deforms our view rather than clarifying our understanding of the
traditional house.

Sociocultural factors [Morgan]:house forms can also be
strongly related to patterns of cultural behaviour, of cultural values
and worldviews. Lewis Henry Morgan had been a precursor of such studies
using the method of factor analysis. He identified various types of social
behaviour and customs which could be related to the longhouse among Indian
tribes researched. Morgan's basic framework was his theory on the social
evolution of mankind (savagery, barbarism, civilisation) which he combined
with an evolution of family structure (promiscous, monogamy, patriarchal
monogamy) and further also with data related to the "Houses and House-life
of American Aborigines" (1881). Among the Iroquois who - acording to his
classification - lived a primitive communism, he interpreted the longhouse
in regard to this communal life, particularly in regard to the capacity
to invite outsiders and to offer them great hospitality. But, in this case
too, one will have to remain sceptical in regard to such unilinear correlations.
They transmit the impression of a purely functional first hand evaluation.

Symbolic conceptions [Griaule/ Dieterlen]: Referring to
Martin Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen (1954/1963) Schefold maintains further
that symbolic conceptions are culturally important paradigms. Concepts
of the adequate order and relations in the "social and cosmic universe"
can play an important role in the construction of a house. Griaule and
Dieterlen's report about the Dogon huts in Mali had shown how a "very complex
cosmology" finds its expression in an "esoteric anthropomorphical symbolism"
which influences the plan of the houses and settlements and also defines
their form (Fig. 4). Such studies doubtless produce a certain fascination
because they reveal an unexpected spiritual grandeur in what is considered
simple in the framework of conventional ideas of primitivism. However,
such studies mainly based on interviews should also sceptically be questioned.
For many researchers the expressions 'cosmos' and 'cosmology' are very
quick at hand. A closer view shows that the emphasis of the term is on
the concept of a well structured or aesthetic order. In its European history
this could spatially be extremely limited. In Ancient Greece it could mean
a local military order or could be limited on the face like 'cosmetics'
(Kerschensteiner 1962). From the 14th century in Europe the term was used
in astronomy and thus gained its universal dimensions. Evidently anthropological
research is unbiasedly ready to accept such terms. They are filled with
Eurocentric contents without critically asking about the factual local
implications. Here too there are great risks to commit mistakes which should
be avoided.

Multiple factor thesis [Schefold]:Finally Schefold gives
his own overall conclusion saying that there are many factors defining
houseform. One of these factors can be of great importance, but the interaction
of several factors can be equally important. Referring to the cross culturally
comparative method of anthropology or ethnology Schefold emphasises the
importance of traditions. Communally important conditions may have developed
basic forms among some groups or cultures, whereas considerable variations
are shown among neighbouring or related units. It is clear, the comparative
method of anthropology lacks history. Neither written nor monumental sources
are available. Consequently the insights remain vague and often speculative.
We can not maintain anything of a really reliable character. If on the
other hand house research - by means of technological periodisation for
instance - manages to introduce new temporal criteria, this might be of
considerable importance.

Conventional Anthropology: an exampleFig. 4

Fig. 4: Schefold mentions this example of an "anthropomorphism
in the idealised plan of a Dogon settlement". Evidently there is not much
similarity with our Eurocentric view of the human figure. It would be interesting
to clarify these indicators further with the attempt to be able to understand
the conditions of the whole image behind. (EVAW 1/:7)

The symbolic meaning of the vernacular house

Symbolic dimensions: Not all anthropological
studies are focused on genetic factors in regard to houseform. Schefold
interpretes symbolic meanings in a similarly important autonomous dimension.
"After all, in most traditional societies the house is man's most important
three dimensional creation. It creates space within space, it places borders
around a piece of the universe and, in so doing," Schefold continues, the
house "is the thing which obviously can serve as an expression of conceptions
about the world in its entirety." Evidently this suggestion too has a projective
character. If we assume that the cultural process of space conception runs
from local models to the environmental and, very late in cultural history,
to the universal, then, the basic ontology or 'worldview' must consequently
be searched in an environmental model or 'microcosmic' prototype, not in
the universe.

Schefold mentions examples related to three different types of symbolic
meanings: cosmos symbolism [Eliade], social organisation [Cunningham] and
gender symbolism [Bourdieu]. We want to critically discuss these three
groups in the following.

Cosmos-symbolism [Eliade]: Schefold operates with wellknown
theories in this context, as in the following example, implicitly referring
to Mircea Eliade (1995a, b). In many regions of Southeast-Asia - he says
- the longhouse is considered a symbolic representation of a threepartite
cosmos. Heaven, earth and underworld appear in the symbolic meaning attributed
to the roof, the living rooms and the basis below. "The house thus forms
a miniature cosmos, micro-cosmos." Evidently this interpretation reflects
Mircea Eliade's spatial structuralism. In early civilisations and before,
man had become overhelmed in view of the endless spaces of the cosmos and
therefore, honouring these dimensions, reproduced these axial systems on
earth in his environment 'en miniature' as sacred places, temples and so
on. Of course, as indicated above, this is also a (theologically founded)
Eurocentric concept. However, if we rather emphasise evolutionary principles
of hominid space perception, Mircea Eliade can also be interpreted inversely.
We would then have to say: 'the house traditions mentioned show a stereotype
order of categorical polarity, which reflects analogies to the environment
perceived in tripartite ways of heaven, intermediate world and lower world.
The origins of this perception are not assumed in the perception of macrocosmic
structural conditions as it is maintained in the case of Eliade, but are
considered to be related to a model within the tradition of the society
researched. The concept of 'macrocosm' in this evolutionary view would
thus be merely a vague speculation, a structural projection using the local
model.

Social organisation [Durckheim/ Mauss, Rassers; Cunningham]:The
second group too shows its strong leaning to the Eurocentric tradition
of theories: French positivism, in particular Durckheim and Mauss with
the thesis of the social origins of symbolic classification. In this context
Schefold hints to Rasser's survey of the Javanese house. Its internal divisions
show the attribution of a sacred, closed and female internal part with
a profane open and male part. Rassers interpretes this as a socio-cosmic
dualism which - according to him - is characteristic for Java in general.
Here too one should be aware that the primary conditions of this concept
are related to macrocosmic dimensions. Evidently it would be more difficult
to search the microcosmic prerequisites in Javanese culture. However, the
primacy of social organisation as maintained by positivism has been questioned,
says Schefold. But the "holistic view remains that various aspects of a
culture are interconnected in an all-embracing order, the basis for all
structural anthropological approaches." Cunningham's study of the Atoni
on Timor shows how social (lineage), political and cosmological oppositions
define the House of the Atoni and the life within. They can be taken as
an example how traditional societies lacking script can store their ideas
within the house. This may be valid for those living within the concerned
tradition, but might be much more difficult to understand for those who
come from outside somehow like 'aliens'.

Gender-symbolism [Bourdieu]: Finally Schefold hints to
Pierre Bourdieu's analysis of the Berber house (1972) which is described
as strongly characterised by gender symbolisms. Female categories, which
imply darkness, are connected to the internal part of the house. This stands
in strong contrast to male aspects indicating outside. They are considered
cultural, are implying fertilising capacities and are related to bright
light. Correspondingly, the main gate is important. It has to be in the
east, letting the virile light enter. Here too we can take these informations
as they are and attribute them to a general symbolic disposition of man.
On the other hand we can remain sceptical and ask for the models within
the society concerned.

House societies: In an anthropology of the house, Levi-Strauss'
indication (1982) on the importance of the term house ('societes de la
maison') among many European aristocrats should not be neglected. In this
framework, the house in its physical formation appears as a fundamental
category, as objectification of common interests, however, limited on certain
social strata. Ancient names, founder titles, ritual functions and sacred
heritage were related to such a 'moral person of the house'. It forms the
point of convent for group formations.

The projection of euro-historical disciplines

The problem of all these heterogeneous interpretations consists
in the fact that to a great extent they project Euro-historically founded
concepts on foreign materials. The methodological relations are not clarified.
How do they all relate, these various symbolic meanings? Are they basically
different from each other? Or do they seem different to us, only because
we tend to classify them differently (anthropomophous, gender-relations,
macro/ micro-cosmic, inside/ outside spatially etc.)? Are they connected
in quite different ways than we would expect? Do these societies search
for oppositions in general in order to combine them into harmonious units
irrespective of their factual content? Are we confronted with an entirely
different philosophy?

Schefold closes his contribution by emphasising the potentially fertile
cooperation between architects and anthropologists, but he sees both domains
fairly different. In the conventional sense of interdisciplinarity he thinks
the two fields might be able to produce positive results by close cooperations.

However, this is a very onesided presentation. It is based on the idea
that anthropology, particularly cultural anthropology, or social anthropology
offers a sufficiently stable system, a system which can easily integrate
architecture somehow as a new subdiscipline. But this is a far too simplified
view. Conventionally it has to do with the professional 'low-contact factor'
between anthropologists and architects.

This last sentence leads us to the other side. Architecture itself has
also developed its own anthropological architectural theory, mainly as
a reaction against an intra-professional problem. We are speaking of the
architectural crisis triggered by the art historians in the end 60ies of
the last century. Some people call it the "Charles Jencks-coup"! It included
the death-declaration of modernism and the return to style history [postmodernism].
It also postulated written history of architecture as architectural theory!

We want to shortly outline this new "intra-disciplinary" anthropology
of architecture in the following.

3.THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF HABITAT AND ARCHITECTURE

Structure, Methods and new Outlooks

Its main starting points were the rather chaotic discussions
between Modernism and Postmodernism in the domain of architecture. The
new position critically points to the irrational dissection of aesthetically
defined 'high' architecture and pragmatic 'low' building which is basically
responsible for the hollow rhetorics in the architectural field at present
(ca. 100 different styles, acc. to Jencks). Further, 'Vitruvianism' is
considered as 'architectural theory', in fact a regress into 19th century
concepts, or, in other words, a post-modern architectural fundamentalism.
In addition, Rykwert's book 'On Adams House' (1972) searches the ideas
of the 'primordial hut' in the Bible, which can be taken as an indicator
for the complete helplessness of art historians if it comes to clarify
evolutionary questions in regard to architecture (similarly Rykwerts 'dancing
column' 1996)! See in this context also the incredibly narrow-minded 'librarywork-program'
of the ETH-Z/ gta-institute under Oechslin. (Oechslin 2003)

Fig. 5: Architectural Anthropology: This scheme
shows the main lines of the evolution of constructivity and architecture.(1) shows the hominoid tradition of nestbuilding, treenests,
nightcamps and groundnests with rooted materials, the latter forming the
subhuman prototype of architecture.(2) A further important process is the evolution of the
semantic domain: the use of fibrous and fibroconstructive signs and symbols.
Most important in this line are the impacts of the first tools: materials
can be cut and transported elsewhere for construction which allowed a great
formal, functional and topological differentiation of early architecture.
Equally important is the development of categorical polarity with semantic
architecture. It forms a model to see categorial polarity of natural forms
(e.g. top and trunk of tree, horns and head of animals etc,) in analogy
with the categorial polarity of self made artefacts.(3) The later huts and houses are formed by the two primary
lines.(4)The primary sedentary type is agrarian village, in
which semantic architecture is the source of ontological developments.(5) The urban line takes over the agrarian system but
manipulates it either by monumentalising (temples) or verbalising and fixing
it in this form (e.g. AT). These transitions are of great importance even
today. But many are not aware of these connexes and transitions. Conventional
theories are fixed on history in the strict sense. The new traits only
show when using structural history (ethno(pre-)history [or 'anthropological
definition of material culture].

In this critical framework architecture is newly defined in scientific
terms as "all what man and his predecessors built and build." (Fig.
5)This new anthropological definition leads us to some basic discoveries!
First we become aware of a technologically new "fibroconstructive industry"
which is of pre-lithic importance and suggests an entirely new temporal
framework to discuss architecture in an evolutionary dimension. Two different
and new domains of architecture are discovered, "subhuman architecture"
(Fig.
6, 7) and "semantic architecture" (Fig. 8-12). We gain a new
classification (Fig. 5):
(1) subhuman [nestbuilding behaviour of the Great Apes],
(2) semantic [life-tree- fetish- maypole-complex],
(3) domestic [vernacular architecture],
(4) sedentary [settlement core complex] and
(5) urban architecture [early city-statesand the monumentalisation
of fibroconstructive village cultures] (Egenter 1992).

Some general points

Methodologically this new classification of architecture calls
for a new approach derived from "structural history" (Wernhardt 1981).
It is called "ethno(pre-)historical method" (Egenter 1994a). Material culture
is not studied conventionally according to different disciplines like prehistory,
history and ethnology. It is defined anthropologically, that is collectively.
This has great advantages for architectural research. In fact, architecture,
with its endless examples of 'fibrous materials' used in ethnology and
folklore cultures, now lets us discover a "soft prehistory" (Egenter 1986,
1990d) which might have been much more important than the "hard prehistory"
of the archaeologists. 'Soft prehistory' produces new perspectives in regard
to the 'artefact' concept. Most exciting is the new term 'prelithic fibroconstructive
industries' because the artefact concept gains new temporal depth, particularly
with the primary class of 'subhuman architecture' (see below).

A second important point: semantic architecture had important functions
in the generation of sedentary life and culture. Its toposemantic characteristics
allowed it to develop into a temporary or sedentary territorial demarcation
system in which certain social individuals or groups transmitted their
territorial claims to other individuals or social groups in the present,
and, by cyclical renewal of the fibrous demarcation to later individuals
or social groups. As a perceptional and conceptional model "semantic architecture"
autonomously introduced and developed high ontological values which later
became the basis of aesthetics, cognition, and religion (Egenter 2001).

Both classes also provide us with entirely new artefact depths. Architecture
can now be considered with an artefact depth of 16 million years. And constructive
behaviour can be considered with 22 million years of temporal depth. This
will lead to quite new types of organisation of our knowledge regarding
the human past. Constructive behaviour, achitecture and sedentary life
will become very important factors in our theories of cultural evolution
(Egenter 2001)

Fig. 5 shows these fairly new parameters outlined in a schema which
lets us understand the evolution of architecture and culture in close relationsship.
Note that not the toolmaker is the central figure anymore, we put the capacity
to construct with fibrous materials ("constructivity", Yerkes 1929), and
its products "architecture", "demarcated habitat" and "increasingly sedentary
life" , finally "monumentalisation of fibrous culture" into the centre
of the process of hominisation. Important is also the degree of expanding
space perception and space control. We can conclude a lot from the structural
models we discover in this new perspective. There are essentially five
evolutionary lines, all surviving into the present as 'living traditions'.
The first three are most important here.